Hi Folks, The following is an update on the ongoing I2RS<=>TE Topology alignment discussion (between the authors of the TE Topology model and Alex).
The issues / solutions that are currently being discussed are: I2RS Generic Network Topology Model (draft-ietf-yang-network-topo): 1. Some groupings in ietf-network.yang and ietf-network-topology.yang cannot be used in augmenting module because of missing name spaces, such as "path "/network/network-id" at line 42 of ietf-network.yang. Solution: Proposed fixes have been sent to Alex to verify. 2. "leaf network-ref" in ietf-network-topology.yang:169, 220, is causing pyang validation errors. Solution: Alex will check the errors. 3. Can the group of schedule attributes be moved from ietf-te-topology.yang to ietf-network-topology.yang? Solution: We agreed to keep them in ietf-te-topology.yang. 4. How to support state branch in augmenting module? Solution: Keep base model ietf-network-topology.yang as is. In the augmenting module, for each entity like topology, node and link, create a config container for configuration attributes and a state container for operational state attributes. 5. Should "server-provided" flag be used to block user operation on read-only entities? Solution: Keep base model ietf-network-topology.yang as is. TE topology will use other means to achieve such a purpose. 6. Should I2RS Generic Network Topology model have a top-level container? The benefit of doing so is to provide an augmentation target node to define attributes global to all networks. Solution: I2RS Generic Network Topology module authors will consider making "/networks" as the top level container. L3 Topology Model (draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology) 1. L3 Topology Model should have references to TE Topology model, so that the related TE information can be properly retrieved, when L3 topology and TE topology are congruent. Solution: L3 Topology Model authors will need to update the model and draft to include these. L2 Topology Model (draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-topology) 1. L2 Topology Model should have references to TE Topology model, so that the related TE information can be properly retrieved, when L2 topology and TE topology are congruent. Solution: This needs to be discussed with L2 Topology Model authors. Regards, - Xufeng (on behalf of the authors of the TE Topology Model) From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Susan Hares Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 6:42 PM To: [email protected] Cc: 'Jeffrey Haas'; 'Alia Atlas' Subject: [i2rs] WG LC for Topology (10/1 to 10/14) This begins a 2 week WG Last call (10/1 to 10/14) draft-ietf-yang-network-topo - modeling draft http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo/ draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology - L3 topology http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology/ draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-topology - L2 topology http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology/ Implementation status: This an OpenDaylight (ODL) implementation of the L3 topology and general model. It is likely the L2 topology model will be supported in future ODL implementations. Jeff and I would appreciate anyone who has implementations of these topology models to provide details on list or offlist to the chairs. Sue Hares
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
